Chapter V.

The various blasphemies uttered by the Arians against
Christ are cited. Before these are replied to, the
orthodox17381738 In the
original Catholic, i.e. “Catholics.” Heresies
might become widespread—the Arian heresy, indeed, counted
numerous adherents in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries—but
they took their rise in some member or other of the ecclesiastical
body, in some one of the many local churches which together made up the
one œcumenical church. On the other hand, the primitive
teaching, received from the apostolic age, had been delivered without
difference in every place to which it had penetrated. It
was acknowledged and established before sects and heresies; its
original was divine, theirs only human; it rested on the rock of
Christ’s authority, speaking through His apostles, whilst they
were built on the sands of preeminence in sophistry and captious
interpretation; it was for all times and places, therefore, but they
were only for a season. In this belief those who clave to the
teaching of the apostles claimed for themselves the name of
“Catholics,” and for the œcumenical church of which
they were members that of “Catholic and Apostolic.”
To avoid any misunderstanding, I have used the term
“orthodox,” which will stand very well for
“Catholic,” inasmuch as “the right faith” is
for all, without difference, to hold—in a word, universal, or, as
it is in Greek, καθ᾽ ὅλου
(whence καθολικός, Catholicus, Catholic).are
admonished to beware of the captious arguments of philosophers,
forasmuch as in these especially did the heretics put their
trust.

34. Now let us
consider the disputings of the Arians concerning the Son of
God.

35. They say that the Son of God is unlike
His Father. To say this of a man would be an insult.17391739 It would
constitute an insult, as suggesting that the man was a bastard, or
supposititious.

36. They say that the Son of God had a
beginning in time,17401740 Thus the Arians were
anathematized by the Nicene Council as “those who say that there
was a time when the Son of God was not.” whereas He
Himself is the source and ordainer of time and all that therein
is.17411741 The original
was: “Cum conditor ipse sit temporum,” which,
rendered more closely word for word, is, “whereas He Himself is
the ordainer of times,” or “ages.” The Latin
tempora is the equivalent of the Greek αἰῶνες,
which is commonly rendered “worlds” in the A.V. of the New
Testament, e.g. Heb. i. 2; Rom. xii. 2; 1 Cor. i. 20; ii.
6; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Gal. i. 4; 2 Tim. iv. 10. But αἰὼν also means
“age”—“for ever and ever” is the
rendering of εἰς
αἰῶνας
αἰώνων (“unto ages of
ages”) or είς
τὸν αἰῶνα. The
term denotes the world as a complex, the parts of which are presented
to us in succession of time, from which notion is derived its use to
denote a selection of the parts so presented, collectively termed an
“age” or “time.” Another word rendered
“world” in the N.T. is κόσμος, which frequently
occurs in St. John; and St. Paul also has it, in conjunction with
ἀιὼν in Eph. ii. 2. “According to the course
(ἀιῶνα) of this world (κόσμου).”
Κόσμος means the
world as an ordered whole, as opposed to a chaos. The use
of “world” to translate both κόσμος and αἰὼν may be justified
on the ground that we cannot think of time void of objects and events,
whilst, on the other hand, we know not—at least, have never
observed—any objects and events not in time. For us
“time” is a necessary form of thought. We are men, and we would not be
limited to time. We began to exist once, and we believe that we
shall have a timeless existence. We desire after
immortality—how, then, can we deny the eternity of God’s
Son, Whom God declares to be eternal by nature, not by
grace?

37. They say that He was created.17421742 The Arians
asserted that the Son had no existence before He was begotten and that
He was “formed out of nothing” or “out of things
non-existent;” i.e. that He owed His existence to the
Father’s absolute fiat, just as much as the light
(Gen. i. 3). Furthermore, the
Son’s will was mutable; He might have fallen like Satan.
The Father, foreseeing that the Son would not fall, bestowed on
Him the titles of “Son” and “Logos.” But who would reckon an author
with his works, and have him seem to be what he has himself
made?

38. They deny His goodness.17431743 Arius’
arguments against believing in Christ as the Almighty Power of God were
based on the N.T. records of Christ’s agony and prayer in view of
death, which he thought must imply, not only changeableness of will,
but also limitation of power. Had Christ been omnipotent, like
the Father, He would have had no fears for Himself, but would rather
have imparted strength to others. Their blaspheming is its own
condemnation, and so cannot hope for pardon.

39. They deny that He is truly Son of God,
they deny His omnipotence, in that whilst they admit that all things
are made by the ministry of the Son, they attribute the original source
of their being to the power of God. But what is power, save
perfection of nature?17441744 Arius’
teaching on this head appears to be fairly enough represented by
Athanasius: “When God, being purposed to establish created
Nature, saw that it could not bear the immediate touch of the
Father’s hand, and His operation, He in the first place made and
created a single Being only, and called Him ‘Son’ and
‘Logos’ to the end that by His intermediate ministry all
things might henceforth be brought into existence.”
Contra Arianos, Oratio II. § 24.

40. Furthermore, the Arians deny that in
207Godhead He is One with the
Father.17451745 Christ, according
to the Arians, was not truly God, though He was called God.
Again, He was only so called in virtue of communication of grace from
the Father. Thus He obtained His title and dignity, though the
name of God was used, in speaking of Him in a transference, such as we
find in Ps. lxxxii. 6; though Christ’s claim to such a title far
transcended any other. Let them
annul the Gospel, then, and silence the voice of Christ. For
Christ Himself has said: “I and the Father are
one.”17461746 S. John x. 30. It is not
I who say this: Christ has said it. Is He a deceiver, that
He should lie?17471747Num. xxiii. 19. Is He
unrighteous, that He should claim to be what He never was? But of
these matters we will deal severally, at greater length, in their
proper place.

41. Seeing, then, that the heretic says that
Christ is unlike His Father, and seeks to maintain this by force of
subtle disputation, we must cite the Scripture: “Take heed
that no man make spoil of you by philosophy and vain deceit, according
to the tradition of men, and after the rudiments of this world, not
according to Christ; for in Him dwelleth all the fulness of Godhead in
bodily shape.”17481748 It would, I
think, be unfair to construe this passage into an absolute condemnation
of all the results of human activity, arrived at without any conscious
dependence on what we mean by revelation. We must remember, too,
what “philosophy” was in the world into which St. Paul was
born. It was no longer the golden age of philosophic
activity—with the exception of Stoicism, there was hardly a
school which exerted any elevating moral influence. Besides, the
“philosophy” of which St. Paul was especially thinking when
he wrote the passage cited (Col. iii. 8, 9) was hardly worthy of the
name. It was one of the earliest forms of Gnosticism, and among
other practices inculcated worship of angels, i.e. of created
beings—“Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Virtues,
Powers.” See Col. i. 16–18; Eph. i.
20–22. Such
“philosophies,” falsely so-called, would tend to bring
philosophy in general into disfavour with the teachers of the
Church. Yet we find Eusebius, in the fourth century, calling the
Faith “the true philosophy” (H. E. IV. 8). The
adoption of the term to denote what St. Luke called “the
way” (Acts xix.
23) appears to have been due
to the action of apologists like Justin Martyr, who set themselves to
meet the wise of this world with their own weapons, on their own
ground.

42. For they store up all the strength of
their poisons in dialetical disputation, which by the judgment of
philosophers is defined as having no power to establish aught, and
aiming only at destruction.17491749 The original
conception of Dialectic, as exhibited, for instance, in Plato’s
Republic, hardly answers to this. According to Plato, the
aim of Dialectic, so far from being destructive, was distinctly
edifying. The Dialectic method, as its name implies, was one
which took the external form of question and answer. It had a
definite, positive object, viz., the attainment by force of pure reason
to the clear vision of the Absolute Good, the ultimate cause of
knowledge and existence. The sphere of Dialectic was pure reason,
then, and its object the ultimate truth of things.
(Republic, VII. p. 532.) The method which St. Ambrose here
calls “Dialectic” would have been more correctly entitled
“Elenchus.” But it
was not by dialectic that it pleased God to save His people; “for
the kingdom of God consisteth in simplicity of faith, not in wordy
contention.”175017501 Cor.
iv. 20. Cf. ii. 4, 5.

1738 In the
original Catholic, i.e. “Catholics.” Heresies
might become widespread—the Arian heresy, indeed, counted
numerous adherents in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries—but
they took their rise in some member or other of the ecclesiastical
body, in some one of the many local churches which together made up the
one œcumenical church. On the other hand, the primitive
teaching, received from the apostolic age, had been delivered without
difference in every place to which it had penetrated. It
was acknowledged and established before sects and heresies; its
original was divine, theirs only human; it rested on the rock of
Christ’s authority, speaking through His apostles, whilst they
were built on the sands of preeminence in sophistry and captious
interpretation; it was for all times and places, therefore, but they
were only for a season. In this belief those who clave to the
teaching of the apostles claimed for themselves the name of
“Catholics,” and for the œcumenical church of which
they were members that of “Catholic and Apostolic.”
To avoid any misunderstanding, I have used the term
“orthodox,” which will stand very well for
“Catholic,” inasmuch as “the right faith” is
for all, without difference, to hold—in a word, universal, or, as
it is in Greek, καθ᾽ ὅλου
(whence καθολικός, Catholicus, Catholic).

1739 It would
constitute an insult, as suggesting that the man was a bastard, or
supposititious.

1740 Thus the Arians were
anathematized by the Nicene Council as “those who say that there
was a time when the Son of God was not.”

1741 The original
was: “Cum conditor ipse sit temporum,” which,
rendered more closely word for word, is, “whereas He Himself is
the ordainer of times,” or “ages.” The Latin
tempora is the equivalent of the Greek αἰῶνες,
which is commonly rendered “worlds” in the A.V. of the New
Testament, e.g. Heb. i. 2; Rom. xii. 2; 1 Cor. i. 20; ii.
6; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Gal. i. 4; 2 Tim. iv. 10. But αἰὼν also means
“age”—“for ever and ever” is the
rendering of εἰς
αἰῶνας
αἰώνων (“unto ages of
ages”) or είς
τὸν αἰῶνα. The
term denotes the world as a complex, the parts of which are presented
to us in succession of time, from which notion is derived its use to
denote a selection of the parts so presented, collectively termed an
“age” or “time.” Another word rendered
“world” in the N.T. is κόσμος, which frequently
occurs in St. John; and St. Paul also has it, in conjunction with
ἀιὼν in Eph. ii. 2. “According to the course
(ἀιῶνα) of this world (κόσμου).”
Κόσμος means the
world as an ordered whole, as opposed to a chaos. The use
of “world” to translate both κόσμος and αἰὼν may be justified
on the ground that we cannot think of time void of objects and events,
whilst, on the other hand, we know not—at least, have never
observed—any objects and events not in time. For us
“time” is a necessary form of thought.

1742 The Arians
asserted that the Son had no existence before He was begotten and that
He was “formed out of nothing” or “out of things
non-existent;” i.e. that He owed His existence to the
Father’s absolute fiat, just as much as the light
(Gen. i. 3). Furthermore, the
Son’s will was mutable; He might have fallen like Satan.
The Father, foreseeing that the Son would not fall, bestowed on
Him the titles of “Son” and “Logos.”

1743 Arius’
arguments against believing in Christ as the Almighty Power of God were
based on the N.T. records of Christ’s agony and prayer in view of
death, which he thought must imply, not only changeableness of will,
but also limitation of power. Had Christ been omnipotent, like
the Father, He would have had no fears for Himself, but would rather
have imparted strength to others.

1744 Arius’
teaching on this head appears to be fairly enough represented by
Athanasius: “When God, being purposed to establish created
Nature, saw that it could not bear the immediate touch of the
Father’s hand, and His operation, He in the first place made and
created a single Being only, and called Him ‘Son’ and
‘Logos’ to the end that by His intermediate ministry all
things might henceforth be brought into existence.”
Contra Arianos, Oratio II. § 24.

1745 Christ, according
to the Arians, was not truly God, though He was called God.
Again, He was only so called in virtue of communication of grace from
the Father. Thus He obtained His title and dignity, though the
name of God was used, in speaking of Him in a transference, such as we
find in Ps. lxxxii. 6; though Christ’s claim to such a title far
transcended any other.

1748 It would, I
think, be unfair to construe this passage into an absolute condemnation
of all the results of human activity, arrived at without any conscious
dependence on what we mean by revelation. We must remember, too,
what “philosophy” was in the world into which St. Paul was
born. It was no longer the golden age of philosophic
activity—with the exception of Stoicism, there was hardly a
school which exerted any elevating moral influence. Besides, the
“philosophy” of which St. Paul was especially thinking when
he wrote the passage cited (Col. iii. 8, 9) was hardly worthy of the
name. It was one of the earliest forms of Gnosticism, and among
other practices inculcated worship of angels, i.e. of created
beings—“Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Virtues,
Powers.” See Col. i. 16–18; Eph. i.
20–22. Such
“philosophies,” falsely so-called, would tend to bring
philosophy in general into disfavour with the teachers of the
Church. Yet we find Eusebius, in the fourth century, calling the
Faith “the true philosophy” (H. E. IV. 8). The
adoption of the term to denote what St. Luke called “the
way” (Acts xix.
23) appears to have been due
to the action of apologists like Justin Martyr, who set themselves to
meet the wise of this world with their own weapons, on their own
ground.

1749 The original
conception of Dialectic, as exhibited, for instance, in Plato’s
Republic, hardly answers to this. According to Plato, the
aim of Dialectic, so far from being destructive, was distinctly
edifying. The Dialectic method, as its name implies, was one
which took the external form of question and answer. It had a
definite, positive object, viz., the attainment by force of pure reason
to the clear vision of the Absolute Good, the ultimate cause of
knowledge and existence. The sphere of Dialectic was pure reason,
then, and its object the ultimate truth of things.
(Republic, VII. p. 532.) The method which St. Ambrose here
calls “Dialectic” would have been more correctly entitled
“Elenchus.”